AwakeEnergyScouter

The requirement isn't done, so the youth isn't due anything until it is. Therefore, there is no delay in receiving what is due because it isn't due yet. Downvote for explaining something factually and calmly? Noted. You're right, the Internet can be a hard mean place. That's why we scouts do better, right? May you also find happiness and contentment. I'm following swilliam's cue and sticking to my RL scouter friends for a while.

Take care of yourself. May you be well and happy, and may your scouts blossom into happy, healthy young adults as well.

As you can see, they were not. She was asking for help on manually marking off a partially completed requirement, that was the whole question.

Exactly! Adding to my satisfaction is that two of my fellow leaders went at the same time, so now we're working on improving how our unit runs at the same time. By the time our tickets are finished, we will have significantly improved operational efficiency and have incorporated all the new adventure requirements into the operations in a scalable, repeatable way. And now when we need something, we have contacts at council as well as other units. Much better situation to be volunteering from.

To me, the natural solution is for him to join the scout corps in Ecuador since that's where he lives now (https://scoutsecuador.org/) and then just come visit your troop whenever he's around as a social and networking visit. My troop had some foreign visitors like that, although mostly scouters. Some of my patrolmates had expatriated also, and joined in that case Scouts NZ while they were there. When they came back to Sweden, they brought scouting contacts with them. All part of the worldwide siblinghood of scouting. Your troop would be in an excellent position to earn the International Spirit Award! You would have an old scouting friend to visit, perhaps at an Ecuadorean camporee. You would have a much easier time planning cool high adventure in Ecuador with a local scouting friend to help. Lots of cool possibilities there!

I found my people! Now I can reach out to people in the area to talk about scouting instead of the Internet. I came here to connect with other scouters in the time that I have - the in between times and late nights. Now I can text people I know personally instead. I quite enjoyed WB, and would recommend. The brief format made it a great reminder of things I already knew, I learned a few new things, but above all I got plugged into engaged scouters nearby.

All, naturally, true, but I wanted to thank you @skeptic for causing me to read this particular section. Thinking of some recent conversations about acceptable cub squirreliness, I'm not crazy after all, and it's always good to know I'm not the only one who thinks simply meeting the sacred in nature develops spirituality 😃

Yes, yes, and yes, happening right now as we speak in the US and has been happening for literally over sixty years elsewhere. There is ample proof of concept here - this is a weak argument unless you have data showing that a large enough fraction of parents to cripple Scouting America as a whole refuse to send their children to youth activities that only have other children that are just like their child demographically. And even if you did, it's an argument pertaining to the goal of growing or maintaining Scouting America the organization as opposed to preparing youth to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law. And like DuctTape said, parents centering identity politics over a quality alternative learning program isn't really the fault of Scouting America. If the parents in your community can't stand doing things with people that aren't just like themselves in every way, then arguably they were never interested in scouting in the first place. We have always been a movement consisting of different "categories" of people - remember that Brownsea deliberately included scouts of different socioeconomic status. The current WOSM reference document The Essential Characteristics of Scouting starts with this BP quote that I'm sure you've heard before, in the context of Messengers of Peace if nothing else: The first paragraph reads Scouting isn't equally popular everywhere because our ideals aren't equally popular everywhere. But we don't compromise our values just because they're unpopular in some particular place. That's a key strength of our movement. The implied proposal you seem to be making is that while you agree that trans and cis kids are equally important and valuable, we should exclude the trans kids (and perhaps everyone else who isn't able-bodied, cishet, at least middle class, etc) anyway because the parents of the cis kids don't want their kids hanging out with trans kids. Is that correctly restated? Sorry to hear that your troop is having problems, but my unit has to my knowledge 100% straight cis kids and plenty of boys whose parents are happy to have them there, are happy to have them share a campsite with the girls, and wives of male leaders who don't have a problem with them going camping with us female leaders (and vice versa). (To be fair, I don't really care what their sexual orientation is and they're cubs so I could be wrong about that 100%, I'm not really seeking that information.) Heck, one of the probably straight cis boys who's having a hard time got a man to man emotional intelligence talk from one of the male leaders recently. We've had a good recruitment season and have now made up the losses we suffered after COVID. Are you sure that you're framing your unit's problems correctly in the first place?

The assumption is that boys and boy parents don't want to scout with girls. That's obviously not generally true (most scouting programs are fully coed, and I personally know boys and boy parents in Scouting America that want to scout with girls so it can't be the case that all the anti-girl scouts congregated in this NSO), so this claim needs quantification and justification to be taken seriously.

So, SO awkward though. And... doesn't feel true. The absolute vast majority of people are cis. Nobody - literally nobody - thinks that cis girls are boys, so how can they be boy scouts? The term is arguably unclear. I wasn't a boy scout as a youth. Any my male patrolmates weren't girl scouts. And we also weren't hermaphrodite scouts. We were all just scouts. What we were doing was way more important than what gender we were. Taking gender as the primary lens on life and then viewing scouting through it is a mistake. In a scouting context, make scouting the primary lens on life and leave gender to be one of many, many secondary characteristics of scouts. Gender is not the prism through which everything must be seen and understood.

I think we're all struggling with this. I have found myself saying and writing "cub scouts" more (for cub scouts, of course) whereas I used to just say "scouts" about them, and "the regular scouting program" about what is formally called Scouts BSA and trying to reserve "scouts" for those older youth. But I can see that my division of cub scouts being "extra" and Scouts BSA being the "regular" program isn't necessarily how others around me think about it so I don't know that I'd recommend that last bit. I suppose the way it used to be way back when cub scouts were wolf cubs and blue-winged butterflies makes it clear in that 'scout' isn't even in the name for those, but it would be a real bad idea to give up the US Cub Scouts brand when there's nothing particularly wrong with it. But, certainly, to me 'scouts' is the patrol-method-using thing above all else, so while it doesn't solve the problem directly I do think that adding that 'cub' for cub scouts can help with clarity.

This seems to be generally true. Once the rules start requiring gender segregation, suddenly you have an operational problem if you don't have a critical mass of girls (to be clear, we also care about and value the presence of boys in Scouting America units, but because it used to be the case that all units were 100% boys there are already a lot of boys in the organization such that best I can tell nobody is struggling to serve them), and it's hard to get that critical mass in one go. We had a scout in my unit be the only one who couldn't tent with another scout at Webelo-AOL "transition" summer camp and had to tent with a parent. That happened because of the genders of who happened to sign up from our unit as well as the added complexity for the camp to track and match gender in each campsite and operational den. The scout was promised a tentmate by the camp, and the scout was excited to meet them until the point close to bedtime that it became clear that they weren't coming. The camp had moved the pack with the other lone girl to another campsite and patrol without noticing that it broke the gender pairing. TBH I can't blame them. It's too much.

I agree completely, and wish I had a strong answer for that last question.

All the other data ring true, so my guess is that the abuse question data are also good. I have never seen an ad like that, but I'm also a cord-cutter, so I was never going to if they were only on TV. Online, we all experience very different ads, and parents who weren't in Scouts as youth obviously wouldn't be targeted by the lawyers, so... Maybe the TV ads weren't making as big an impression on parents of current youth as it might have seemed? I just realized yesterday while selling popcorn that at last some of the people who think we're selling cookies literally do not know that Scouting America exists. I thought they had scouting so gendered in their minds that girls in any kind of scouting uniform=Girl Scouts=cookies, but apparently I'm not just telling people who didn't know that girls can be Scouting America members but also telling people that we exist. That took me aback a little, and I was wondering if that was just those two people, but after watching this video it would seem that really is a problem. They don't think about us at all. That also explains why the boys also get asked if they're selling cookies. They don't think about us at all. I'm glad to hear what's in that presentation and it sounds like they get it. Relaunch the brand is exactly what's needed. People need to know who we are and what we do - accurately. I have had to explain to more than one prospective or new parent that one does not have to be a Christian to join Scouting America. The truth is that out of the people who know we exist, a lot of people have an inaccurately narrow view of whom scouting is for. That also needs fixing if we want to grow, and I'm so glad that they seem to realize that.

It seems that way to me as well. When I was a scout myself, I didn't even register a lot of the leadership training as such, because it was just something to deal with in order to go on epic adventures. Like I think a good number of folks have said repeatedly before here, the kids aren't signing up for leadership and character, it's what they get in the process of the sausagemaking. The kids want ADVENTURE. A Chief Scout that radiates cool suitably dangerous adventure is a great messenger for that reputation. I haven't surveyed all NSOs and MOs of course, but I don't think it's a coincidence that both Scouts UK and Scouterna are growing, are culturally "around", and are selling primarily outdoor adventure. When Scouts are mentioned in Swedish entertainment and news media, we're portrayed as fit, competent, and organized at survival skills. One match fire, all that jazz. We are always portrayed outside. I saw my now cub scout perk up when they saw that in children's shows. They're almost certainly not alone. When I see Scouting America portrayed in US media, it's mostly around civic/patriotic themes. That isn't bad, but it isn't alluring to the children the way outdoor adventure is. The parents probably like to see that, but becoming known in our local communities as the premier arranger of outdoor adventures for youth is probably strategically important if we want to magnetize kids. Now, a cool Chief Scout isn't the only way to create that reputation, of course. We scouters can talk up the adventure we're arranging to people in our communities. Our pack had a strategy discussion last year about leaning into outdoor adventure and (age-appropriate) responsibility for making it happen last year, and we're all heartened to see that the program bar for outdoor adventure has gone up to about where we wanted to put it. We're geared up to offer all the fishing adventures on both campouts and separate fishing trips this year so that we're offering camping, fishing, and hiking on a monthly basis. We need to beat REI and all the various get outdoors groups in terms of reputation as a great on-ramp to outdoor skills. We should be people's #1 choice for that.